Some nationalities living on the territory of Russia become victims of the bureaucratic games for the urgent imposition of "national culture". And this is done, first of all, to destroy everything Russian that they had …
The original meaning of Russian words is revealed more and more. Many of them were borrowed by other languages. So it happened with the word "CAR". Not understanding its original meaning, the “guardians” of the revival of the Udmurt nation decided that this word meant simply “CITY” in the Udmurt language. As a result of irresponsible juggling, they created ridiculous names for the primordially Russian cities.
We are now talking all the time about the restoration of all the former wealth of the Russian language, trying to prevent its further distortion and impoverishment. But with the Udmurt language, the situation is exactly the opposite. Check out the difference …
This is how the authorities allocate funds, on the one hand, for the destruction and impoverishment of the Russian language, and on the other, again, they pay for the revision of the languages of other peoples of Russia that do not reach the modern level.
Interestingly, no one talks about the "further development and improvement" of the Russian language. And why, because he not only copes with this without outside help, but without any modifications is able to describe our entire modern life. The Russian language easily fits into all technical and scientific spheres.
So what over the past 15 years have the Udmurt linguists been able to improve?
They began by restoring, allegedly, the original names of villages, villages and everything that came to hand. More precisely, they were not restored, but duplicated - above the Russian name, and below the Udmurt name. And as they delved into this process, they grabbed their heads - there are not enough Udmurt words! When there weren't enough of them before, no questions arose, they used twisted Russian words into the conversation and okay. And for a long time it has been so. Back in the 18th century, the Udmurts used the word "torlka" or, even more distorted, "terky", which meant a special dish for festive rituals.
And now I had to deal with "terminology". The current cultural figures were honored to invent such ridiculous names as "Izhkar", "Votkakar" and "Glazkar". The terminophographic commission under the State Council of the Udmurt Republic, which deals with this lewdness, considers:
"Add the root" kar "-" city "to the name of any city, and you will get its name in Udmurt" (Udmurtskaya Pravda No. 92 dated 2010-10-08).
If one does not give a damn about the linguistic traditions of the Udmurt people, then one could agree with this. Only they add "kar" not to the names of cities, but to their stubs, or to the names of rivers. "Izhevsk kar", "Glazov kar", "Votkinsk kar" sound much more decent. Moreover, the word "kar" is never heard separately in the Udmurt speech. In the Russian-Udmurt dictionary, edited by A. Butolin, the word "city" is translated into Udmurt as … "city". So is it Udmurt at all? There are cities to the northwest of Udmurtia, which end with "kar". For example, Kudymkar and Syktyvkar. But the Udmurts did not live there, these are the cities of the Komi people.
Moreover, Kudymkar is associated with its founder, a hero from the Komi legends, whose name was Kudym. But Syktyvkar is the same new work as Izhkar. In 1930, it was named after the Sysola River, which sounds like Syktyv in the Komi. They also diligently added "kar" and it turned out Syktyvkar. After all, someone's hands were itching to rename the former Ust-Sysolsk. In this original name, there was no crime, except for the blatant Russianness.
There is one more problem. Regarding the three old cities of Idnakar (Ignakar), Dondykar, and Vesyagur (Vasyagur), there are Udmurt legends recorded in the 19th century that these cities were built by three brothers-heroes. In legends they are not Udmurts, and these Udmurts do not consider these cities as their own. Many researchers generally believe that the brothers were called Ignat, Danil and Vasya. Guess their nationality yourself.
This word is somehow general - "kar". It feels like it came from ancient times. Or maybe the word "kar" is not just a "city" but a more ambiguous root? What if it is much older than the Udmurts, and goes back to a single proto-language ?! Numerous confirmations of this lie on the surface. The first and most important thing is that the syllable "kar" is a part of many native Russian words, and everywhere carries the same meaning.
The meaning of this syllable begins to be revealed in multi-root words, which we previously took for single ones. "Kar" means - to carry, to contain.
For example, the word "korchaga". Previously, it was pronounced "kar-cha-ga" and meant an earthen pot for fermenting beer. As Mikhail Zadornov has already enlightened us, "ha" means to walk, to move. According to my guesses, verified in many Russian words, "cha" is the juice of a plant. Hence, "tea" - a decoction of herbs, or otherwise - extract of juice, "chaga" - a mushroom growing on damaged areas of the tree, where the juice (cha) comes out (ha). In the word "kar-cha-ga" the first syllable fits perfectly in meaning. It is a vessel that contains (kar) juice (cha) during fermentation (ha). Or, in which this juice is transferred.
There are more modern examples as well. "Carriage" is a primordially Russian word; it is, in fact, a cart. In my opinion, one should read "Kar-this". That is, this is what it contains (the passenger sits inside, unlike the sled), carries it. Undoubtedly, from this word comes the English "car" - car. "Carry" in English is "carry" [carry]. But the English "carriege" [carridge] is translated into Russian as "carriage". The carriage, and in mechanics, has the meaning of a movable support into which something is inserted.
“Kar” definitely got into English from Russian. In Russian it is one of the basic syllables, but in English it is not. I will give just one example, of which there are many.
Do you know what a ship is in Russian?
If you write as you hear it, you get "Kar-abl". With the first syllable, everything is clear here - the ship contains and carries. And what is abl? This is nothing more than a distorted "bummer", or a shell. From this syllable the words "cloud", "obloy" come from. But this is the very essence of shipbuilding! Any ship is a hollow shell displaced from the water according to the laws of physics. That is why iron ships do not sink, although this metal is much heavier than water. Anything that is not a shell is no longer a ship, but a raft.
There is not even a hint of this deep meaning in the English notation. The ship is always "ship" [thorn], and this word at the same time serves the English as the verb "to transport". In Russian, an English ship would sound like a "transporter". We can talk endlessly about the secondary nature of the English language, but what is important is that, thanks to its primitiveness, it retained the unambiguous meaning of many of our Russian syllabic bases, which we have already thrown out of circulation. Therefore, the restoration of the original Russian language is simplified.
This happened, for example, with the word "steppe". Now we don't even think that we once had the root "step", which meant "step". But we have in use a bunch of derivatives from this root - steps, stop, power, gradually, degree. It turns out that for our ancestors this steppe-plain was, if I may say so, a “walk”, a place that differed from all others by the possibility of unhindered movement. But in English everything has been preserved. A step is "steppe", a step is "step".
Now it is clear what the names of settlements like "Ignatkar" actually meant. If “kar” means “to carry to contain”, then the closest interpretation would be: “Ignatkar is a shelter, the abode of Ignat”. This is not some kind of site or camp, but some kind of closed volume - a walled settlement or shelter.
Here the syllable "kar" really means a city, a shelter, a refuge. However, he always stands in second place after the name of the owner, and comes from him. Obviously, this was a certain rule. There cannot be any "KarIgnat", "Kardanil". There are simply no such examples on the map.
But there are many Udmurt villages with names of the type: "Karsovay" (the upper city), "Karmyzh" (the sick, spoiled city), "Karashur" (river city). And this is very logical. In the first place is the main thing, then the secondary. The owner (founder) is the city. The city is its description. And there is also not a single historical Udmurt settlement, which would be named after the river flowing nearby.
It turns out that “Izhkar” is a shelter, the abode of the Izh River, “Votkakar” is a shelter, the abode of the Votka River, and Glazkar, a shelter, the abode of the eye, does not climb into any gate (it looks more like an eye socket).
But the most offensive thing is that no one has any moral right to call these cities in Udmurt. After all, from their very foundation, until today, they are completely Russian. Whether it is bad or good, this is not the point. The main thing is this. Take Izhevsk, for example. Here are excerpts from his past:
“In 1760, for Count Pyotr Shuvalov, on the lands of the Kazan Murza Tevkelev, an iron-making Izhevsk plant was erected on the premises of the Kazan Murza Tevkelev (brazenly, without demand, by the author), and with him - the factory settlement of the same name. In 1774 Emelyan Pugachev "with a horde of thugs and mischievous people" seized the city and executed all the factory bosses (42 people), the plant was looted and partially burned down (this once again confirms the illegal nature of the construction, - author).
Several Russian and Udmurt settlements already existed on the territory of the present city in ancient times … Two versts from the site of the plant's founding on the low-lying right bank of the Izh River, there was a Russian repair of Klyuchi … Even before the founding of the Izhevsk plant, the Russian village of Karlutka was located on the right bank of the Karlutka River …"
At the beginning of the 20th century, only 3 Udmurts worked at the Izhevsk factories. And Izhevsk is undoubtedly a city-plant. And now, according to the 2002 census, about 60% of Russians live in it and only 30% of Udmurts. A similar situation is with other warped cities of Glazovo and Votkinsk.
It is good that these innovations do not take root well. But the water wears away the stone, and who knows what our grandchildren will call their cities, if we do not tell them the truth …
Alexey Artemiev
